So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.
I realize that I am likely considered to be the "Karbon Kook" of the thread. However, it is obvious to me from the research I have done over the past year that Krauthammer doesn't know what he is talking about. The "more research" that he is advocating has already been done, something he would know if he had bothered to actually read some of the literature that is out there and written by concerned scientists who can actually write for laymen like me and most of the people on this board. But as is usual for this guy, he hasn't bothered to read it. The IPCC isn't country speicific, it isn't discipline specific, it doesn't even, as a body, do research on its own. What it does do is reviews all the research that has been done over the previous xx number of years, and tries to come to a consensus about what the research indicates is likely, very likely, not very likely, etc. The decades between the 1950s and 1970s were the crucial years in the context of wondering whether or not human--or any biological activities, for that matter--could have an effect on planetary systems like the atmosphere and the climate. The question of whether or not human activities could alter a planetary phenomenon like the climate was one of the very basic questions that has been researched and debated and questioned over the past 50 years, with increasing intensity over the past 30 years or so. For Krauthammer to proclaim that this debate hasn't taken place is just plain ignorant. |
